Yes. I should have said 'any honest justification' But if we can expect only dishonesty from their promoters, there's no future for them.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 11:31 AM Doc Shipley via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On 4/3/25 02:41, Adrian Godwin via cctalk wrote: > > AIs that are wise rather than idiot-savants ought to be useful, in the > way > > sci-fi writers imagine. > > However, statistical systems can't surpass their training, and their > > training contains flaws - many, in the case of uncurated internet grabs. > > And the compulsion to not admit to a lack of knowledge and substiture - > > perhaps unknowingly - hallucinations is absurd. I cannot see any > > justification for that. > > The justification for that compulsion is fairly obvious if you take > "do no harm" out of the equation. An AI that says "I don't know" loses > more business, aka profit, than an AI that spouts garbage. > > AI and LLMs strengthen my belief that humanity's technology surpassed > our ethics decades ago. Like, trampled any useful code of behavior into > the dirt. I don't have the faintest idea what to do about that, either. > > > Doc >
